EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:
1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone.
2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT).
3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).
If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].
If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I].
EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for an extranodal lymphoma that has more than one tumor in the primary site OR has intraluminal extension from the primary site to an adjacent organ? See discussion.
1. Small lymphocytic lymphoma with 2 tumors in the stomach.
2. Lymphoma involving the cecum and ileum.
3. Lymphoma of the fundus of stomach with extension into the esophagus.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Using the EOD scheme for lymphoma, code the Extension field to 11 [Localized involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site; Stage IE] for all 3 of these cases.
For the stomach lymphoma: There are 2 areas of lymphoma, but it is still confined to one site.
For the other 2 lymphomas: Intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the lymphoma never equals extension. The same phrase that was added to code 21, "Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues", will be added to code 11 in the Collaborative Stage System. Neither "mucosal spread to a contiguous organ" or "direct extension into a nearby organ" affect staging. Both are still coded to 11 as long as there are no other sites of lymphoma involvement.
EOD code 80 is poorly written. It does not mean diffuse invovement or multiple tumors in a single organ but rather "diffuse disease in two or more organs."
EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is "erosion" synonymous with "ulceration" for melanoma cases?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, do not interpret the term "erosion" as a synonym for "ulceration" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration.
EOD-Extension--Meninges: How do you code extension for a malignant meningioma that invades into the adjacent brain tissue?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 60. Code 60 is defined as a brain tumor that extends into the meninges. It is also the appropriate code to use for a tumor that extends from the meninges to the brain.
EOD-Extension--Mycosis Fungoides: Explain the difference between extension codes 25 [% of body surface not stated, no tumors] and 30 [skin involvement, NOS; extent not stated, no tumors. Localized, NOS]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For mycosis fungoides: Use code 25 when skin involvement is present but only a general location/site is mentioned (i.e., face, legs, torso, arms).
Use code 30 when there is skin involvement but there is no mention of location/site.
EOD-Extension--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field for an ovarian primary presenting with "spread to the omentum"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 75 [Peritoneal implants, NOS] because the size of the implants on the omentum is not known.
Note 6 was added to the EOD scheme which states that both direct extension and discontinuous metastasis to the omentum are coded in the range 70-75 depending on how the peritoneal implants are described.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Can you explain the difference between code 10 [confined to pancreas] and code 30 [Localized, NOS]. See discussion.
For example, a CT scan mentions no extension beyond the head, body or tail of the pancreas and there is no surgical resection. Should we code extension to 10 or 30?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [confined to pancreas] because a scan supported the finding of no extension beyond the pancreas.
If the abstractor reviewing the medical record has scans, op reports, and/or pathology reports stating that the tumor is confined to the pancreas, code extension to 10 [confined to pancreas].
However, if the medical record only provides a patient history from a physician stating that the patient had localized pancreas, code extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. The NOS codes are used only when there is not enough information to code the specific codes (in this case, 10 or 20).
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when a mass is described on exploratory laparotomy as compressing the duodenum, arising in the head of the pancreas, "extending around" the superior mesenteric vein and artery, and "encasing" the portahepatis?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. Neither of the terms "extending around" nor "encasing" are interpreted as involvement with tumor by SEER.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion.
We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How would you code extension for the following non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? None of these cases has TNM staging to assist with classifying the extent of disease. See discussion.
1) CT scan: Cystic lesion in body of pancreas. Discharge dx: pancreas ca.
2) Discharge dx: CBD obstruction due to probable early ca in head of pancreas.
3) CT scan: mass involves the head and body of the pancreas. No evidence of abdominal mets. Discharge dx: Locally advanced pancreatic ca.
4) H&P: Pt with splenomegaly probably secondary to splenic vein thrombosis and a large ca of the tail of pancreas. Imp: Advanced pancreatic ca of the tail of pancreas. Would you code extension to splenic vein [56]?
5) H&P: Pancreatic ca with extension or mets into porta hepatis. (Would you assume direct extension or mets?)
6) CT scan: Pancreas ca. Significant peritoneal implants. (Would you assume the implants to be related to the pancreas primary and code as involvement?)
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
The information provided for these pancreatic primary examples is very limited. Additional information should be sought. If not available, code the EOD-Extension field to:
1) 10
2) 10
3) 10
4) 99
5) Assuming primary in head, body or tail of pancreas, 76
An official website of the United States government
Home